On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) <jsquy...@cisco.com> wrote: > On Aug 29, 2016, at 11:06 AM, C Bergström <cbergst...@pathscale.com> wrote: >> >> If the patches are performance impacting I would never burden >> upstream, but I do hope that regardless you'll consider them. Based on >> the patch for 1.x it seems cosmetic. I'll take the most honest and >> unbiased look at the patches against 2.x and master to see if I feel >> guilty for asking for review. > > We've used a lot more C99 in master/v2.x (i.e., since we forked for v1.7). > It would be a much, much harder sell to remove all the C99 from there. > > Also, if SLES 10 is EOL, that also somewhat detracts from the desire to add a > bunch of engineering work to support a 27-year-old version of C. > > As it is, I am surprised that your patches are so small for v1.10 -- that > can't possibly remove all the C99 stuff from the entire code base. Are you > are only selectively removing *some* of the C99 from the parts of Open MPI > that you are compiling that make it work on your compiler? If so, that's a > bit more of an oddball case: i.e., you're not proposing strict C89 adherence > across the entire code base.
I'm not intentionally doing anything oddball. I am however testing with clang and our compiler. If upstream clang is doing anything oddball (which I'd be a bit surprised) then we probably follow along. The features you're using in c99 appear to be cosmetic candy and non-performance impacting. 27-year-old standards and older are quite frequently still in use for HPC. *cough* Fortran *cough*... ----------- Based on the latest response - it seems that we'll just fork OMPI and maintain those patches on top. I'll advise our customers not to use OMPI and document why. Thanks again _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@lists.open-mpi.org https://rfd.newmexicoconsortium.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
